Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 438/219 of 1985, decided on 11th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Adverse remarks in A.C.R., of Police Officer‑‑Data forming basis of remarks established as incorrect‑‑Remarks, in circumstances, expunged and subsequent order passed on basis of impugned remarks set aside by Service Tribunal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
Talat Ali Khan, A.S.I.) of Faisalabad District had made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above. ,
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks for the year 1983 be expunged and also the orders, dated 5‑8‑1984 and 29‑9‑1985 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the following adverse remarks by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, vide memo. No. 2073/SE, dated 5‑8‑1984 for the year 1983:‑
| 5. (a) | "Investigation of crime against property. | Below average. |
| (b) | Preventive action, under Local and Special Laws. | Below average. |
| (c) | Rating as a S. H .0. , if so, appointed | Below average. |
| 19. | Class of report. | C |
| 20. | General remarks. | According to his working data, he has not initiated any action under the Preventive Sections of Law. No proclaimed offender and military deserter was arrested. Keeping in view, his overall performance, he is graded 'C'. |
The appellant made a representation against these adverse remarks to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was considered and rejected, vide his order, dated 29‑6‑1985. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks given to the appellant are unjustified and not in consonance with the facts and have been given by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad on the basis of an incorrect data supplied by the S.H.O., P.S. Jaranwala. He has referred to the data now supplied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jeranwala Sub‑Division attached at Annexure 'D' which clearly shows that the defects so reported against the appellants in the A.C.R. are unfounded, baseless and cannot be sustained. He has prayed that on the above justification the adverse remarks be expunged.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also the justification given by the Reporting Officer, Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, vide his letter, dated 30‑11‑1985, addressed to the Deputy Inspector‑General, of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad through which the Reporting Officer has fully justified these remarks. Hence, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the adverse remarks be retained on the A.C.R. of the appellant.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the justification given by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, vide his letter No. 18/St, dated 30‑1‑1985, submitted to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad submitted on the representation of the appellant. The Reporting Officer has concluded his justification referred to above as follows:‑
"However, if the representationist still has any doubt with regard to the correctness of the figures, his working for the period under report may be ascertained from S.D.P.O., Jaranwala afresh and the matter may be disposed of accordingly."
So the Reporting Officer has left the matter open to be relied on the data to be supplied afresh by S.D.P.O., Jaranwala. The appellant has also attached the latest data as verified by the D.S.P., Jaranwala Sub‑Division, dated 18‑5‑1985, at Annexure 'D'. According to this data, the performance of the appellant is as follows:‑
(1) Recovery of stolen property worth Rs.89,000 and not Rs.9,000 as originally reported by S.R.O., Jaranwala.
(2) Recovery of unlicenced Arms‑‑4 cases and not one as originally reported by the S. H .O. Jaranwala.
(3) Preventive action‑‑13 ‑ canes and not 'Nil' as originally reported by S.H.O., Jaranwala.
(4) Narcotics‑‑Recovered 286 ounces of liquor but nothing was originally reported by S. H. O
(5) Arrest of proclaimed offenders‑‑One not 'Nil' as reported by S.H.O.
The impugned order, dated 26‑9‑1985 of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad also makes it clear that the period under report of this A.S.I., for the year 1983 is from 1‑7‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983. Thus, the above performance is for the above period only and not for the whole year. Keeping in view, the above factual position and performance of the appellant, the adverse remarks given to the appellant appear to be based on the incorrect data supplied by the S.H.O., P.S. Jaranwala in the first instance. Hence, there is justification for expunction of the adverse remarks.
8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the adverse remarks for the year 1983 as conveyed to the appellant are expunged and the impugned orders are set aside.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer